-Ramphal Kataria
Many Visits, Few Friends: India’s Diplomatic Illusion Exposed
Abstract
This blog interrogates the growing disjunction between India’s parliamentary democracy and its Prime Minister–centric foreign policy under Narendra Modi. It argues that the recurring absence of the Prime Minister from Parliament—owing largely to foreign visits scheduled during active sessions—constitutes a serious erosion of legislative accountability. While acknowledging certain diplomatic gains achieved through India’s multi-alignment strategy between 2014 and 2025, the analysis questions the timing, costs, and tangible outcomes of these engagements. A comparative assessment with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s tenure highlights a shift from institutional, Parliament-anchored diplomacy to optics-driven personal outreach. The blog further examines how moments of crisis—most notably Operation Sindoor after the Pahalgam massacre—exposed the limits of personality-based diplomacy, as India found itself diplomatically isolated and compelled to send parliamentary delegations abroad. India’s altered stance on Gaza and strained relations within its neighbourhood are analysed as indicators of declining moral authority and Global South leadership. The study concludes that sustained global credibility is inseparable from respect for Parliament, without which India’s foreign policy risks strategic loneliness.
The recurring visual of an empty Prime Ministerial chair during turbulent Parliamentary sessions has become one of the most telling images of India’s contemporary democracy. While the Prime Minister’s Office frames frequent overseas travel as “strategic global outreach,” the timing and outcomes of these visits increasingly suggest a deeper crisis: the systematic sidelining of Parliament in favour of optics-driven, personality-centric diplomacy.
In a parliamentary democracy, the Prime Minister is not merely the chief executive; he is first and foremost the Leader of the House, constitutionally accountable to elected representatives. His presence during critical sessions—especially Budget, Monsoon, and Winter sessions—is not ceremonial courtesy but democratic necessity. Repeated absences weaken Parliament’s authority and hollow out the very idea of executive accountability.
The 85% Conundrum: Diplomacy or Democratic Evasion?
Data and parliamentary disclosures point to a disturbing pattern: nearly 85% of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s foreign visits have coincided with active Parliamentary sessions. This correlation cannot be dismissed as coincidence. When major foreign trips are scheduled during sessions already curtailed in duration, the effect is unmistakable—Question Hour is neutralised, debate is diluted, and scrutiny is evaded.
Question Hour remains the only forum where ministers, including the Prime Minister, are directly answerable to Parliament. Avoiding it systematically transforms diplomacy into a shield against domestic accountability. In such a scenario, foreign travel ceases to be merely diplomatic engagement and begins to resemble executive insulation.
Modi vs. Manmohan Singh: Substance Versus Spectacle
The argument that “all Prime Ministers travel” collapses under comparative scrutiny. Dr. Manmohan Singh, often criticised for his understated style, undertook 71 foreign visits in 10 years—significantly fewer than Modi’s ~97 visits in 11 years. More importantly, Singh rarely absented himself from Parliament during critical debates.
Singh’s diplomacy was institutional, outcome-driven, and Parliament-aligned. It produced enduring results: the India–US Civil Nuclear Deal, stable ties with the Arab world and Iran, principled support for Palestine, and economic diplomacy embedded within domestic reform consensus. Modi’s approach, by contrast, has been high-decibel and event-led, prioritising diaspora spectacles and personal branding over institutional continuity.
The financial contrast is equally stark. By 2018 alone, Modi’s foreign visits had cost the exchequer over ₹2,021 crore, with hundreds of crores more spent thereafter. Yet higher expenditure has not translated into proportionate diplomatic leverage.
Operation Sindoor: The Moment Diplomacy Was Tested—and Failed
The true test of foreign policy is not applause at global summits but support during national crisis. Operation Sindoor, following the Pahalgam massacre, exposed the limits of India’s much-advertised diplomatic clout.
Despite years of “hugging diplomacy”:
China termed India’s counter-terror response “regrettable”.
Turkey and Azerbaijan openly supported Pakistan.
The United States, under Donald Trump—projected domestically as Modi’s close friend—acted in a manner widely perceived as humiliating, pushing mediation that undermined India’s long-standing bilateral position on Kashmir.
Most tellingly, India was compelled to send urgent multi-party delegations of MPs across global capitals to explain its stance. This alone punctures the myth of personal diplomacy. If goodwill had been institutionalised, emergency diplomatic firefighting would not have been necessary. India received little more than ceremonial condemnations of terrorism, while pressure to de-escalate mounted squarely on New Delhi.
The Gaza Shift: Abandoning Principle, Losing Ground
India’s altered stance on Gaza represents another instance of diplomatic hollowing. By drifting away from its historic, principled support for Palestine, India has weakened a policy that once ensured credibility across the Arab and Muslim world.
This shift has had tangible consequences:
Erosion of Global South leadership, as India abstained on key UN resolutions.
Loss of moral authority, creating a vacuum now actively filled by China.
Growing discomfort among energy-rich West Asian partners who once viewed India as a reliable, principled actor.
Foreign policy divorced from ethical consistency may appear pragmatic in the short term, but it carries long-term strategic costs.
From Strategic Autonomy to Strategic Loneliness
By late 2025, India’s foreign policy reflects what may be termed “naked realism”—transactional engagements without dependable allies. Neighbourhood instability, strained ties with Bangladesh and Canada, persistent deadlock with China, and retreat from trade blocs like RCEP have compounded India’s isolation.
This external drift is inseparable from internal democratic erosion. A Prime Minister who is frequently absent when Parliament debates Manipur, economic distress, or national security signals that the legislature is secondary. No amount of global posturing can compensate for democratic neglect at home.
Conclusion: The Cost of an Empty Chair
Strategic diplomacy and parliamentary responsibility are not mutually exclusive; they demand balance. Foreign visits can be planned around Parliamentary calendars—as is routine in mature democracies. Absence is not inevitability; it is a political choice.
India’s global stature rests fundamentally on its identity as the world’s largest democracy. When the Prime Minister is repeatedly missing from its most sacred chamber, the moral force of India’s foreign policy inevitably erodes. A nation that sidelines Parliament cannot credibly claim leadership abroad.
The empty chair in Parliament is no longer a visual coincidence—it is a democratic warning.
References
1. Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), Government of India – Annual Reports (2014–2025)
2. Lok Sabha Unstarred Questions on foreign travel of the Prime Minister
3. Parliamentary Research Service (PRS India) – Data on Parliamentary sessions and Question Hour
4. Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) disclosures on foreign visit expenditure
5. G20 New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration, 2023
6. Quad Joint Statements and Defence Cooperation Documents (2017–2024)
7. UN General Assembly voting records on Gaza and Palestine
8. IDSA and ORF policy briefs on India’s strategic autonomy
9. Media reports on Pahalgam massacre and Operation Sindoor (May 2025)
10. Scholarly works on India’s foreign policy under Modi and Manmohan Singh
No comments:
Post a Comment